Friday, March 31, 2017

Food Stamp Restrictions


The 2016 President campaign came with many promises from both sides.

The Democrats promised to basically print more money and make everyone’s dreams come true, while the Republicans promised to drop the hammer on the ill-considered economic and security decisions that former President Obama enacted.

President Trump has already followed through on many of those promises, giving the states back the rights to drug test welfare recipients and it looks like more bad news for those resisting gainful employment.

Via Truth Monitor: The Department of Agriculture this week announced a change in the way that food stamps or now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan (SNAP) will be doled out.

The Department will now start being stricter about who is eligible for the program. The eligibility guidelines were updated three years ago, but have not been implemented up to date.

Section 4008 of the 2014 Farm Bill denied benefits to two groups: Those “convicted of federal aggravated sexual abuse, murder, sexual exploitation and abuse of children, sexual assault, or similar offenses under state laws, as well as those who are not in compliance with the terms of their sentence or parole or are fleeing felons, from receiving food stamps.”

So basically President Trump is moving us back toward a place where you are unable to live off taxpayers’ dime if you’re spending your time committing violent crimes.
Somehow this is frustrating many liberals who think everyone who is unwilling to work or incapable of compassion should get a free ride.

It makes you think that maybe the Democrats have a different long term goal for our country if they even let felons on government assistance in the first place.

Dems Spied on Trump

FORMER OBAMA OFFICIAL ADMITS: WE SPIED ON TRUMP, 'I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open', by Garth Kant, 3/29/17, WND

WASHINGTON – A former Obama official appears to have inadvertently confirmed the former president’s administration spied on then President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team for political purposes.

Speaking on MSNBC March 2, Evelyn Farkas, deputy assistant secretary of defense under Obama, confirmed that not only was the previous administration collecting intelligence on the Trump team, it was attempting to share it as far and wide as possible.

Farkas said the reason for that was, “We have very good intelligence on Russia,” and she “very worried because not enough was coming out into the open.” However, intelligence chiefs who have seen the classified information in question, including Obama’s own former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, have said they have seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump team and the Russian government.

That would appear to indicate the real reason the Obama administration was feverishly collecting and sharing the classified information was not for national security purposes, but for political reasons.

On “Meet the Press” on March 5, host Chuck Todd asked Clapper, “Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?”
Citing a report compiled by the “NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence,” Clapper answered, “There was no evidence of that included in our report.” Did any such evidence exist, asked Todd? “Not to my knowledge,” replied Clapper.

On March 16, Hillary Clinton supporter and severe Trump critic Michael Morell, the former acting CIA director under Obama, said, “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all.” “And there’s a lot of people looking for it,” he added. Morrell also cited “a pretty strong statement by General Clapper.” So what was in the intelligence information that Farkas sought to spread far and wide?

It apparently had no foreign intelligence value and no evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump team.
On March 22, House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif, announced he had seen classified information collected by the Obama administration that consisted of:

“Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration – details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value – (which) were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting. “I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked (revealed.) “To be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia or any investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team.”

Now compare what Nunes described with the details of what Farkas said. She encouraged not just administration members, but also lawmakers (and apparently their staffs), to collect as much information on the Trump team and Russia as possible: “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”

She insisted the intelligence concerned collusion between Trump staff and Russians, despite statements to the contrary by Clapper and Morrell: “Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy … that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their … the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.”

She admitted trying to share classified information as far and wide as possible: “So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia,” she said. “So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.”

That would appear to raise serious questions about the legality of sharing classified information so widely, as well as whether she was, in effect, facilitating the illegal leaking of classified information.

There is also the question of how Farkas, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, was able to see classified information on the Trump team. That may have been answered Wednesday when CIRCA reported that an executive order signed by Obama during the end of his tenure allowing 16 agencies, in addition to the CIA, NSA and FBI, to view classified material resulted in top Obama aides “routinely” reviewing “intelligence reports gleaned from the National Security Agency’s incidental intercepts of Americans abroad.”

The paper also said the rule changes allowed “NSA intercepts of Americans to reach political hands.”
Here’s how talk-radio king Rush Limbaugh described the significance of the CIRCA story on his show Wednesday:
“What this story is about is how Obama changed the rules on incidental wiretapping. In other words, if NSA, CIA are targeting foreign actors, and that surveillance picks up Americans, such as (former National Security Adviser Gen. Michael) Mike Flynn, Obama changed the rules to share the transcripts of that intel with his political people.
“(Former National Security Adviser) Susan Rice, (top Obama adviser) Valerie Jarrett, John Brennan, opening, or I should say expanding, the universe of possible leakers to the media about what was going on.

“So an Obama late rules change, two now, sharing intel with 16 different intel agencies, including foreign governments, and now opening the door for NSA intercepted intelligence of Americans to reach the political operatives in his administration.”

Obama’s executive order putting classified intelligence in the hands of political operatives is one reason why Nunes declared on March 22: “The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate this surveillance (by the Obama administration) and its subsequent dissemination to determine:
·        “Who was aware of it,
·        “Why it was not disclosed to Congress,
·        “Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking (revealing of names),
·        “Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates, and
·        “Whether any laws, regulations, or procedures were violated.”

In another twist to the Russia saga, Democrats are not pleased that Nunes has turned the focus of the investigation from whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, as the president has alleged. And now that Nunes has said he has seen proof that the Obama administration did spy on the Trump team, Democrats appear particularly desperate to get rid of the chairman.

For weeks, reporters have demanded to know: Where is the evidence to back up President Trump’s claim that the Obama administration spied on him? But now that Nunes has said he has evidence to confirm the spying, the media are in an uproar, demanding to know how he got such information. Nunes said he got the information from sources in the intelligence community.

On Monday, NBC’s Hallie Jackson asked White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, “Why is this leak OK, but other leaks are not?” Because, he replied by pointing out the obvious, the chairman of the intelligence committee is cleared to see classified material. Reporters are not.

Then reporters demanded to know details about how Nunes got the intelligence information showing the Obama administration spied on the Trump team and where he got it.
Nunes said he went to the White House to meet a source and review dozens of intelligence reports on the Trump transition team acquired via government spying.
He explained it was not to meet with members of the Trump administration, but that the White House was simply the most convenient secure location that had a computer connected to the system that housed the reports.
The chairman told Bloomberg News, “We don’t have networked access to these kinds of reports in Congress.”
Still, reporters demanded to know during Monday’s White House press briefing if the information had been leaked to Nunes by the Trump administration.

However, Nunes had said earlier that day that his source was an intelligence official and not a member of the White House staff. He also made it clear that the information he obtained, although circulated “widely through the executive branch,” was done so during the Obama administration, not the Trump administration, because the documents were from November, December and January.

Nonetheless, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking member on the intelligence committee, along with a growing number of Democrats, have accused Nunes of colluding with the Trump administration and are demanding the chairman recuse himself from leading the investigation. “I’m sure that the Democrats do want me to quit because they know that I am quite effective at getting to the bottom of things,” Nunes said Monday night on Fox News.

When asked if he should recuse himself, the chairman replied, “Why should I?” The bad news for the Democrats may be just beginning. President Trump is now asking the Intelligence committee to investigate lucrative Russian ties to Hillary and former President Bill Clinton. A deal between a Russian state-owned energy company and a Canadian-owned mining company closely tied to the Clinton Foundation led to Russian control over one-fifth of U.S. uranium interests.

As WND reported, tens of millions of dollars from uranium investors flowed into the Clinton Foundation before then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped decide whether to approve the sale of the Canadian company to the Russian government. Before she approved the deal, Clinton’s husband, Bill, was paid $500,000 for giving a speech in Moscow. The 2010 deal for a majority stake of Canadian-based Uranium One – which required approval from Clinton’s State Department and eight other federal agencies – and its plausible connection to major donations to the Clinton Foundation was exposed by author Peter Schweizer in his book “Clinton Cash” and confirmed in a 3,000 word, front-page story by the New York Times. Former Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer was among several individuals connected to the deal who made donations to the Clinton Foundation. Telfer made four foreign donations totaling $2.35 million, the Times reported.

The donations flowed as the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013. Snopes and other “fact checkers” who insist there was no quid pro quo have argued that most of the donations were made in 2008, before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. But she was running for president at that time.

President Trump also wants Congress to investigate business ties between Hillary campaign manager John Podesta and Russian business interests. Learn more about the man front and center in the news today. Get Rep. Devin Nunes’ manifesto for “Restoring the Republic.”

Bacon Offends Muslims

Swedish Man Prosecuted for Assaulting Muslims with Bacon


WTF? Bro Gets PROSECUTED For Eating BACON Too Close To Muslims – No, This Isn’t SATIRE, 3/29/17

Eating bacon in public. It’s a REAL problem. But Sweden’s rape epidemic? Meh.

The incident occurred in the Swedish capital of Stockholm over the weekend. The Swedish man, who has not been named by media or the police, is said to have approached the Muslim women who were wearing Islamic veils on a train while he was eating bacon and dangled the bacon in front of their faces, Swedish broadcaster SVT reports.

According to the report, the women got up to find seating elsewhere and the man followed them with his bacon. He is alleged to have called them derogatory names and made racist comments, though neither the police nor the court has specified what was said during the incident.

The prosecutors allege he then used racial epithets on another woman in the train station after getting off the train. He faces charges of incitement to racial hatred.

Read More: Breitbart


There is real citizen anger in Sweden over the Muslim invasion. If hundreds more Swedes would offend Muslims, their politicians might get the message.  The first step for the politicians is to take the refugees off welfare.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Refugees Continue in US

587 refugees admitted since 120-day moratorium should have started, Syrians top list, by Ann Corcoran 3/29/17

It has been 13 days since the Trump Administration said it would begin a 120-day moratorium on admissions through an Executive Order blocked by two rogue judges.

Instead of doing what the Trump Department of State is legally permitted to do, without an EO, and pause the program, we have admitted 587 additional refugees since I checked the data on the morning of March 16th (moratorium was to begin that day).

Topping the list are 116 Syrians and not far behind 107 Somalis. Other countries sending us their supposed refugees in the last 13 days include Sudan (22), Iraq (50), Iran (36), Burma (44), DR Congo (23) and one of the most maddening is El Salvador (35).  There is no question that the El Salvadorans are NOT refugees.  Many other countries are represented by smaller numbers.

Each one of these ‘refugees’ will cost US taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars over the next 5 years.

Yesterday we learned that federal contractors are hopeful that Trump will actually aim for Obama’s dream number of 110,000 refugees for FY2017 (which ends on September 30th).

As of this morning, according to Wrapsnet, we are at 38,693!
Trump needs to get a pep talk from the Visegard 4! By the way, as far as I know, the bureaucrats in the Dept. of State are still running the program. I haven’t seen any news about Trump and Tillerson picking an Asst. Sec. of State for Population, Refugees and Migration.  Have you?

In nearly 10 years we have admitted 139,695 Iraqi ‘refugees’ with no sign of flow stopping, by Ann Corcoran 3/30/17

In my previous post, I reported that three Iraqi ‘refugees’ have been arrested in Virginia for lying on their admission forms to the US. At least one of them made up his ‘persecution’ story!
How many more liars are there in this huge flow to America?
Because I wanted to see how many Iraqis were placed in Virginia, I checked Wrapsnet going back to FY2008. That is the year when the flow to your towns began in earnest.  Usually Virginia doesn’t come in in the top ten for much when it comes to refugee admissions, but for Iraqis I was surprised to see it at #7.
Up to this morning, we have admitted 139,695 Iraqi ‘refugees’ since George W. Bush reluctantly opened the flood gates in his final year in office. Obama, of course presided over the last 8 years of seeding Iraqis throughout America.
Of the 139,695, 35,899 are Shiites, 50,554 are Sunnis and 2,184 are unspecified Muslims.   The remaining 37% are all other religions.  I continue to be troubled by the fact that we admit both sides of the warring Muslim sects (and likely place them in the same neighborhoods!).

Iraqi refugees arrested in Virginia for lying on their refugee admission applications, by Ann Corcoran 3/30/17

They lied more than once! The first whopper was a lie of omission.  They failed to mention that their brother was a terrorist. And, at least one of them made up his “persecution” story to justify his admission to the US as a refugee.

Hasan admitted to making false statements and creating his persecution story. If the story sounds familiar, lying on ones refugee application is what caught the two Iraqi refugee terrorists in Kentucky now doing life in prison at taxpayers’ expense.

There were a couple of brief stories about this Virginia case in the news over the last few days which I never could find time to get to, but this morning I’m seeing the full Dept. of Justice press release and posting it below in its shocking entirety! (emphasis is mine)

Russia False Flag

Has the Russian issue been invented by Democrats and their allies as a distraction? Probably, yes. The obsession over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential US election is over the top.  The absence of other news is the evidence that this Democrat scam is meant to add to the anti-Trump propaganda. The outrage over this routine event is more evidence that this is a false flag.


False Flag Definition
The contemporary term false flag describes covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that activities appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them.
Historically, the term "false flag" has its origins in naval warfare where the use of a flag other than the belligerent's true battle flag before (but not while) engaging the enemy has long been accepted as a permissible ruse de guerre; by contrast, flying a false flag while engaging the enemy constitutes perfidy.

Operations carried out during peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, can (by extension) also be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the real organization behind an operation.


Messing with other Countries


Rulers have always looked for ways to influence their neighbors. Until recently, countries simply invaded each other and settled it with a war. The reasons for this behavior over the centuries are endless. The perpetrators are usually the rulers. In the old days, political rivals were killed and their populations were turned into slaves. Today, we are more subtle.


We spy in each other to attempt to determine what our neighbors are up to. We also try to influence their elections. The US does this. Russia does this. Everybody does this. The current parade of politicians expressing outrage over Russia’s alleged spying is hypocritical. These are crocodile tears. They are Democrats who are simply attacking Trump for beating Hillary. It’s all meaningless political posturing.


I am not surprised that Congress is investigating the Russian connection. Most of them are Democrats; even most of the Republicans are closet Democrats. I am also not surprised that these guys need to investigate spying to know what’s going on. They are a clueless lot.


Messing with other countries usually doesn’t work out. Power vacuums are filled quickly with a whole new set of bad guys.  Populations that are merged with others they hate eventually separate.  The cycles of centralization and decentralization operate like weather systems. All politics is local and it requires “showing up” to have any hope of influencing outcomes and preventing troublemakers from taking over.  Populations can be bribed with socialist programs that will eventually crash, but populations don’t get it and they keep taking the bribes.


The methods we use in attempting to control the behavior of our enemies has improved. Rather than go to war, we mess with trade, sanctions, bank account seizures, foreign aid and credit denial. The UN is too politicized and corrupt to be of any use.


Messing with elections can be eliminated, because this just doesn’t work.  If we truly believe that sovereign nations are sovereign, then we must trust to their voters or citizens to take charge of their own countries and vote for their own destruction if they wish. If we continue to bail them out, they will never get the message. 


Admitting refugees from these countries should be abolished. Refugees need to be “adopted” by relatives who can support them if they want to leave their war-torn or bankrupt country. We should allow the best of the best in these countries to apply for US immigration based on our strategic need for their skill.


The US is only responsible for telling voters and citizens of all countries to be careful about who they allow to run their countries, because they will not get any help from us if things go wrong.


Dealing with Enemies


The US needs to recognize that criminals are running many countries and some of these may just need to be avoided and ignored. Retaliation strikes should continue if needed to secure our defense. 

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Russian Uranium Payoff

RUSSIA SCANDAL? INSIDE THE OBAMA-CLINTON URANIUM DEAL, Hillary OK'd sale as cash flowed to foundation, Bill's pockets, by Art Moore, 3/28/17

Tens of millions of dollars from uranium investors flowed into the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank tied to the Kremlin before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped decide whether to approve the sale to the Russian government of a company that held one-fifth of America’s uranium capacity.

That’s the “deal” that Donald Trump referenced in a tweet Tuesday morning in which he essentially said that if Congress really wants to find evidence of U.S. politicians colluding with the Russians, it should investigate the $145 million in donations the Clintons’ received from uranium investors before Russia’s energy agency Rostatom secured the purchase of Uranium One.

Trump tweeted: “Why isn’t the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech.” He followed up with: “… money to Bill, the Hillary Russian “reset,” praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!”

Meanwhile, Congress is examining allegations that the president and his aides colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

The 2010 deal for a majority stake of Canadian-based Uranium One – which required approval from Clinton’s State Department and eight other federal agencies – and its plausible connection to major donations to the Clinton Foundation was exposed by author Peter Schweizer in his book “Clinton Cash and confirmed in a 3,000 word, front-page story by the New York Times.

Former Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer was among several individuals connected to the deal who made donations to the Clinton Foundation. Telfer made four foreign donations totaling $2.35 million, the Times reported.
The donations flowed as the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013. Snopes and other “fact checkers” who insist there was no quid pro quo have argued that most of the donations were made in 2008, before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. But she was running for president at that time.

The origin of the deal traced back to 2005, when mining financier Frank Giustra traveled with Bill Clinton to work out an agreement with the government of Kazakhstan for mining rights.

Giustra has donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.
In June 2010, shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton personally received a speaking fee of $500,000 from a Kremlin-tied Russian investment bank connected to the uranium deal.

The Times pointed out that the Canadian tax records show the contributions to the Clinton Foundation were not publicly disclosed, which violated an agreement Clinton signed with the Obama administration when she became secretary of state to disclose all foreign donations.

Meanwhile, the Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group reported last week Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign chairman, John Podesta, may have opened himself up to a Russian “influence campaign” designed to temper his views of the Kremlin. Podesta possibly violated federal law when he failed to fully disclose his membership on the executive board of an energy company that accepted millions from a Vladimir Putin-connected Russian government fund.

Russia ‘conquers the world’
After Rostatom finally secured 100 percent of Uranium One in 2013, the Russian-government news website Pravda declared: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The acquisition of uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain, the New York Times said.

In an interview after the U.S. government approved the deal, Putin sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko.

“Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Kiriyenko told Putin. The agreement came as the Obama administration, led by Hillary Clinton’s State Department, famously was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia.

Because uranium is considered a strategic asset that has implications for national security, the agreement had to be approved by a panel of representatives from a number of United States government agencies, including the State Department.

The Times noted that both Rosatom and the U.S. government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians, but the promises were repeatedly broken.
The Times commented that while it can’t be proved that the donations had a direct impact on the approval of the uranium deal, “the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.”

When the Times prepared its story during the 2016 election campaign, it obtained a statement from Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon, who insisted no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.”

Fallon argued that the Canadian government and other U.S. agencies also had to sign off on the deal. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he said.

The appearance of undue influence, however, prompted the Clinton Foundation to announce changes, including limiting donations from foreign governments and barring Russia from giving to all but its health care initiatives.

But the Times noted the foundation continued to “accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.”

The Times got insight into the significance of the deal from Michael McFaul, who served under Clinton as the U.S. ambassador to Russia. “Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” he said. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”

Bill Clinton at his side
Russia’s acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where Canadian mining financier Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal. Bill Clinton, strategically, was at his side, the Times noted. “Clinton Cash” author Schweitzer explained the importance of Clinton’s role, in an interview with Breitbart News Daily in March 2016.

Giustra had wanted a large uranium concession in Kazakhstan but had never been able to get it from the country’s repressive dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev.

“Bill Clinton shows up, declares at a press conference that Nazarbayev is a wonderful leader, should actually lead an international human rights organization,” Schweizer said. “And lo and behold, a couple of days later, Nazarbayev gives Frank Giustra this uranium concession.

“A few weeks after that, Bill Clinton’s Clinton Foundation gets more than $30 million from Frank Giustra.”

The Times noted Bill Clinton undercut “American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.”

Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal with Kazakhstan giving the company stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

UrAsia merged in 2007 with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, which soon began purchasing companies with assets in the United States.

By June 2009, Uranium One’s stock had dropped 40 percent, but Russia, lacking domestic uranium reserves, was eyeing a stake in the company.

That’s when Uranium One pressed the U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan, which was under Hillary Clinton’s authority, to talk with Kazakh officials about clearing the way for a deal.
American cables show the U.S. Embassy energy officer met with Kazakh officials, and three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One.

Within a year, Russia sought a 51 percent controlling stake.
The only obstacle to the deal was that the U.S. government, namely the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, had to sign off on it.

The Times pointed out that when a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington. Officials were worried about the mine’s proximity to a military installation and the possibility that minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control.

The U.S. officials killed the deal. Schweizer pointed out that when the Uranium One deal was under way, “a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One” took place. “These Canadian mining magnates decide now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation,” he said.

The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation but about American dependence on foreign uranium sources.
While the U.S. gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only about 20 percent of the uranium it needs, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”

“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” Katusa told the Times. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”

Giving the Russians control
Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern about the Uranium One deal. Two more began pushing legislation to kill it, including Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wy., who wrote to President Obama, saying it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”

The Times observed: “Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.”
A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, told the Times that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?”

Two months later, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States began its review. Did the committee weigh the U.S. desire to improve bilateral relations with Russia against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States?

That information has never been disclosed, but the deal was approved in October after, the Times said, citing two people involved, “a relatively smooth process.”